But listen! I’m reading all over the internet ridiculous ideas about what is biblical sex and what is not. Just the other day I saw a very popular tweet where a man was insisting a woman should not enjoy sex because her sole biblical purpose is to silently and gently procreate. So I can’t help but imagine that he’s had loud and rough sex and got all guilty over it.

In bible college I sat through a whole week of chapel sermons on biblical sex. Oral sex, masturbation, positions that imitated animals or gave the woman power were all suggested as unbiblical. That was a very horny week for me because, well, I can’t help but visualize everything they were talking about.

Am I the only one out there that pictures this stuff in his head? Or is this just the bane of artists?

So I figured I’d create an app that saved us from the problem of thinking and enjoying ourselves called Jesus Creep™.

Hahaha! One of the things we talk quite a bit about at The Lasting Supper is sex, and we have fun doing it! Excuse the pun. No, don’t!

They damn well better be married, or there is no green. Of course, that makes the app all that much easier to write – you just access the app, press “non-married” and get a red flashlight, which you can at least put to good use in your darkroom from yesterday.

(That one in the top right isn’t some teacher inappropriately hugging one of her students, is it?)

PAULA K. SCHMIDT

Precisely the point my pastor made in a recent conversation–the churches biggest issue is not gay marriage or homosexuality, but Sexuality, or simply Sex, period. A normal, natural function of a human relationship gets us so bent out of shape we turn into monsters over it…..

PAULA K. SCHMIDT

wow. Mark. Maybe take a look at my comment above. You are the poster child for the issue.

Gary

It was a real eye opening experience for me when I began to study biblical sexuality and the church history pertaining to sex. Wow. What I learned was that the sexual ethic taught in conservative churches was nothing more than lies presented with dogmatic absolutism in order to control one of the most joyous and personal areas of our lives. If they can get us feeling guilty and sinful over being sexual beings…then they can control us.

Mark

Perhaps I was overly subtle in my attempt at satire; although, I think the regulars will see it for what it is.

Which case is it?
1. Getting a red glow once in your life guarantees hell.
2. Getting a green glow once in your life guarantees heaven.
3. Some equation with counts and various weights attached to each activity where you end up with a certain score that is compared to a deciding threshold?
If it is 2, I’m good. If it is 1 or 3, I’m screwed.

The second iteration of this app is under development and will include these ideas. And I like your pun.

Gary

Once I realized God cared about how we treat people, not about sex, life made so much more sense.

David Mercer

Can’t help but notice how few green lights there actually are on he app, Sheesh. No wonder so many of us Christians are so cranky.

Terrance Tarleton

I appreciate the humor as well as the cartoon, and I agree that the Church is too overly concerned with sex, but let’s not pretend like there isn’t a biblical position, I mean stance, on sex. If one thinks the Bible doesn’t limit sin-free sex to marriage then where does it say it’s okay to have sex outside of marriage? There are lots of things I, as a selfish human being, wish were different in the Bible. But in the end (no pun here either), we have choices to make with how we express our sexuality. Let’s not make the Bible fit our views. How about we admit that sometimes we choose to do things that go against God’s plan for our lives, and often those choices are sinful?

Gary

There is no place where the bible states sin free sex is limited to marriage. There are places where it prescribes not cheating or breaking a marriage covenant…but NO PLACE where it limits sex to marriage. There are MANY places where sex outside of marriage is openly accepted and not in any way condemned or censured by God. Some places where He actually supports it. I would submit that it is the conservative church which has made the bible fit their views, not individuals who understand responsible sexual freedom.

I thought of another use for the app. Some Christians love giving testimonials for how Jesus changed their lives. Well, you could have this as part of an app of things to try BEFORE you take Jesus seriously and then could brag about leaving all the fun bad things behind.

So, looking at the comments, and adding my own, in the next iteration of this app, consider adding a red light for:

Can anyone beat that. Hell, I ought to reconvert — lots of great testimony material!

Doriene D. Marshall

One of my very favorites, David! Thought-provoking, and certainly spirited!

Kathy

Have the people that yip about “biblical sex” never heard of Song of Songs?

afrigeek

Sorry. Your assertion is wrong.

Lets start with the English definition of the word fornication:
Sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.

Then lets see what the bible says about fornication:
Acts 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Corinthians 10:8
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.1 Corinthians 10:7-9 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 10 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

2 Corinthians 12:21
And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Ephesians 5:3
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry

1 Thessalonians 4:3
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over tofornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

If you choose to ignore the bible, that is your choice however do not attempt to give misleading information about what it actually says. And those are just a few verses from the New testament. There are many more in the New Testament and too many to quote from the old testament.

Cecilia Davidson

Paul was about celibacy because he thought the return of Christ was soon. Marriage and sex were necessary evils.

Gary

Exactly. This wonderfully erotic (to the point of pornographic) piece of literature has pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, oral sex, group sex, nude dancing, etc. Even if one were to accept the nonsense that it is metaphorical for the relationship between the church and Christ, the fact that all of these things are portrayed in such a positive light makes it clear that the author has no problem with them. If you believe that the author is God…then you must accept that he has no problem with any of those things either.

Gary

Why would we choose to begin with the “English definition” for fornication? The bible was not written in english. From that false premise your entire post proceeds. I will follow this up later when I have a bit more time with an accurate definition of fornication and discuss the implications of this falsehood more fully.

Any time someone says “biblical anything” I know they are fundamentalists, evangelicals or former-fundies who never really came to see the Christian anthology (“Bible”) as a mix of letters, poems, tribal rules, fake histories and more — not a consistent book with some consistent theology about anything. So, “biblical sex” makes no sense from the get-go. Arguing the Bible makes on sense. Now, exploring the views of the author of “Song of Songs” makes lots of sense — but to compare it to Levitical priest writing or Paul’s writing, is nonsense.

So you haven’t seen the graphic in the Bible that tells you what parts of the human body are OK to use and with what purpose… shame on you… shame on you all! 😛 😉

PAULA K. SCHMIDT

oh, ok

Mark

Understandable. My attempts at satire do occasionally go astray. It’s kind of up and down, in and out. So to speak.

Mark

Big AMEN to that!

Mark

I believe you have second row, right column colored wrong. My understanding of Judaism is that male masturbation is a sin, because the man is potentially wasting another life. However, female masturbation is not a sin – lucky for you fem types! Unless there are any Jewish commentors who would correct me on this.

Nah, I am worried about big government: in our economy, in our bedrooms and send us into their wars. Your generalization is incorrect. I wager you are speaking of about 75% of Republicans. See Gallop

Gary

First of all I clarify that by entering into the discussion about what is the “biblical” view of sexuality I am not professing any kind of belief in an inerrant or totally authoritative bible. I reject both of those premises. However, since you are asserting that the biblical position or stance is one of all sex outside of marriage is sinful, I am happy to discuss whether or not this is a correct assertion.

You began by providing a definition for fornication based on the modern english definition. This is simply not the way to study the bible, not being written in english to begin with. We must look at biblical terms in their context and language.

So let’s talk about the term “fornication”.

From the book divine sex…
“It is not true that “fornication…is illicit sexual intercourse by an unmarried person…” While this definition seems to be standard in much writing and teaching it is nevertheless not a valid lexical definition, and it does not meet the test of Biblical usage. Fornication is a generic word, and is defined strictly as “any illicit sexual activity.” “Fornication” does not in itself specify any sex act as illicit. It encompasses all sexual acts that Scripture defines as “illicit.” Unless Scripture defines “sexual intercourse by an unmarried person” as illicit then the word “fornication” does not apply to that act. “Fornication” has no inherent relationship to the married status of the person committing it. Both married and unmarried people may commit fornication by engaging in any act that the Bible defines as illicit. Such acts as adultery, rape, bestiality, incest, pedophilia and forced prostitution, are generically defined by the word “fornication.”

Now the only question becomes…what DOES the bible define a illicit sexual activity. This eliminates the possibility of allowing preachers to specify any sexual activity they deem inappropriate and call it fornication, promiscuity, sexual immorality, adultery, etc. The only things we can legitimately put in ANY of these categories are things the bible specifically defines as illicit. If we commit to define these terms as the bible does, and not as anyone else does, only then can we conduct an honest search for a biblical sexual ethic, if one exists.

Gary

In addition to avoiding the free wheeling usage of generic terms and limiting their understanding to that which is specified, we can learn much about biblical views on sexuality by studying what types of sexuality is allowed and/or condoned.

A case can be made that bestiality, incest, rape, forced prostitution, somes types of same sex activity, and adultery is forbidden. But only the term adultery relates to the marital status of an individual. And even in that term, it is not true that all married people who have sex with others commit adultery. In fact the bible is abundantly clear that this is NOT the case. Adultery is the violation of a covenant. (The nation of Israel was often guilty in non sexual ways) Thus, any married person who violates a covenant of sexual exclusivity commits adultery. However, a married couple defines their covenant, and if sexual exclusivity is not part of that covenant, then there is no adultery. Adultery is not the sex, it is the violation of the agreement.

Throughout the bible there are many examples of extramarital sex which were in no way considered sinful or ever condemned by God. In fact, when David DID commit adultery with Bathsheba he was already married multiple times and had several concubines as well. Ironically God told him He would have given him even more if David had desired, so there was no need to steal another man’s wife and commit this horrible sin. You see…it was the violation, not the sex.

Your original post said, “…when I began to study biblical sexuality …”

I like your phrase here “biblical viewS” — emphasis mine.

I imagine the leviticus priests, the creator of the David myth, Jesus and Paul all had different views of sexuality.

Or at least that is the best position to begin with, eh?

And even if any author in the Christian anthology said point blank that sex outside of marriage is bad, should we care what they say? I’d say, “No.”

Gary

I agree Sabio. When I discuss a biblical view it is with the intent of refuting those who would make false claims about what IS in the bible. But I view the bible differently than I did in my fundy days. I recognize it as a collection of human writings that contain much error. I believe there is much wisdom in there. And I even believe in some inspiration. But I do not even believe that the bible should be the ultimate authority for the Christian…much less everyone.

Lisa Stollar Bollard

It always goes back to Paul and his hang ups.

Mark

Hey there, Sabio! That’s where I got my info, too. What do you recon is the difference between considering something a sin, and “frowning on impure thoughts”? Those Rabbis seem to parse most everything to the nth degree, but it seemed pretty clear that the rules were not the same for the women as for the men. I wouldn’t mind so much getting “frowned upon” – unless they were standing there during the – well, you can see where my mind is headed.

JenellYB

the Greek word from which ‘fornication’ is translated is ‘pornos.’ Now, before defining ‘fornication’, give ‘pornos’ a go. It means generally, “to make merchandise of.”

Herro

Fascinating. You know the mind of your god! Can you inform us mere mortals of how you know all this?

Gary is very easily excited to such profundity. You too, Herro, would be burdened knowing what God cares about. It must be stressful. 🙂

Tom McGraw

I think yr first three words say it all…;)

Gary

A very valid summary of your beliefs. My statement represents what I have come to believe…nothing more.

Gary

“Porneia” is the greek term that is most often translated as fornication in the KJV. Porneia actually meant illicit sexual intercourse without any specific criteria inherent as to what that activity was. Again, one must look at biblical sexual activity which was condemned if they wish to determine what the bible says is sexually immoral. There is nothing wrong with believing sex outside of marriage is wrong…but to claim the bible declares such is to not be honest with the text.

“Pornos” is also used in the bible, though not as often as porneia, and it does sometimes refer loosely to male prostitution and sometimes to the fairly common practice of pederasty and a “kept boy”. It is pretty easy to see the moral challenges of such a practice and the reason biblical authors spoke out against it. Again…neither of these terms lends themselves to the common usages we see employed today. These were more generic terms which, to be properly identified, require studying context of usage and what specific sexual activities the bible did actually prohibit and/or allow.

Gary

Amusing to me that you thought that was “mean”. Your only comment to me was for the purpose of mockery…my response was simply a candid statement indicating to you in clear terms I will not trouble myself with such attacks.

Good, obvious question, Herro. Fundies may change their theology but often their certainty of knowing God’s new message doesn’t change. And then they ask for respectfulness after spastic cursing — go figure.

Herro

Sure, it was somewhat mockering. But for a good reason. You seriously think that you have any idea about what your god cares about.

With the mockery came a serious question: How do you know about what your god cares about? (hint: you don’t)

Herro

>Fundies may change their theology but often their certainty of knowing God’s new message doesn’t change.

Yup. I think our “unfundamentalist” friends are a good example. They claim that their god actually doesn’t want any woman to submit to men, that their god doesn’t want to judge people and so on.

Gary

Do you believe in the existence of God? Because if you don’t…then I do not believe we have any common ground upon which to base a discussion. And since you have already revealed that your intent is to mock those who believe in God and/or any type of communication with Him…again I ask…Why the hell should I trust you to engage in respectful dialogue.

Seriously dude…I meant it when I said FUCK OFF!!!!

Herro

I don’t believe in the existence of spirit beings (that would include the Christian idea of “God”).

Even if we assume that some powerful spirit being exists, that still makes the idea that Gary somehow knows about the likes and dislikes of that god very silly.

Did this “God” appear to you? Speak to you? Do you base this on what some guy is supposed to have said 2000 years ago? Do tell!

He can believe all he wants, but when he thinks he can tell us what the creator of the universe wants or doesn’t want, that is a whole different issue.

Gary

And you know that I am saying nothing of the sort and ALSO that I do not believe any of those slanderous implications. This is EXACTLY why I end up refusing to converse with you. You have no honor, no integrity, no class whatsoever. You will happily make up an absurd view and attach it to my comment as if it is in any way relevant to what I have said. Then when I get tired of your bullshit and tell you I have had enough you launch into more absurd extremes and basically act like a spoiled little brat because you can’t get your way.

I have had wonderfully productive conversations with Atheists in the past, some even resulting in me changing some of my views. The difference is, those were people with enough integrity to engage others with respect and honesty. It is your bullshit that I will not tolerate or engage.

I think Disqus were doing some maintainance work today, it took me 3 attempts to post a comment here earlier. If you’ve written a long comment, it might be worth copying it before you push the “post” button.

afrigeek

Keeping in mind your statement that you don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I want to keep this to only what I believe scripture shows. Whether or not one chooses to believe the scriptures is not the issue. My issue is simply with an attempt to claim that scripture does not actually condemn sex outside of marriage.

So the root word in greek that is translated fornication means “unsanctioned sexual intercourse” according to BDAG the standard greek lexicon. So what is unsanctioned then? It is true that :Lev 18:6-21,23 does to at any point talk about sex between two unmarried consenting persons.

But lets look at this in light of other scriptures…

Deut. 22:13-14
“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’”

This introduces a situation where a man finds out that his wife was not a virgin before they got married. If the charge was found to be true, then the women was to be stoned (Lev. 22:20-21). At the very least, this demonstrates that, for women, the laws against sexual immorality included sex before marriage.

Mat 5:27-28
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If sex before marriage was not forbidden, why does Christ say that lust is? Implied here is that everything from lust to adultery is forbidden by the sixth commandment. Sex before marriage definitely fits right in between.

Then Paul as has been mentioned here:
1 Cor. 7:8-9
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to stay single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The idea of “burning” here has to do with sexual desire. Here Paul tells all unmarried people that if they cannot control their sexual desires, they need to get married. Why? Because Paul assumes that one cannot fulfill this sexual desire outside of the marital bed. While Paul would love for them to remain single (1 Cor. 7:7), it is clear that he believes that sex outside of marriage is a destructive sin and cannot be used as a gratifying release of our sexual passions thus urging them to marry.

Gary

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I must however disagree with your conclusions pertaining to the intent of the scriptures you provide here. I do recognize that what you have posted represents the nearly universal understanding of these scriptures within a large portion of the church. But it is still one based on modern translations and modern cultural context which includes a great deal of church induced bias. Let me explain…

Your understanding of the passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus is completely absent of the historical cultural context of a women as property who bore a much higher monetary value when they were virgins. There was no sexual freedom for daughters or wives at this time. Men and women were not even close to being equal, with women being little above the status of common slaves. And an abandoned woman often had little alternatives other than prostitution or death. But for the man…there are MANY examples of extra-marital sex for which it was culturally understood to be totally acceptable (so long as another man’s property rights were not violated) and not censured by God in any way. No…to imply these passages were setting up a marriage only universal sexual standard is not true to context.

As for the commonly misunderstood quote by Jesus about committing adultery by looking at a woman lustfully, as before, we must look at the term lust as it was used and understood. Preachers today commonly portray this passage to mean any man who looks at a woman and has a sexual thought or desire is guilty. But for this to be true, lust would have to mean sexual thought or desire. It does not.

Lust (from the hebrew “Hamad” or the greek “Epithumia”) is used to describe strong desire mostly in the context of a forbidden manner, but not always. A strong desire can be for good or bad. When used in a sinful context lust refers to a strong desire for that which is forbidden and implies a covetous heart. Surely you can already begin to see my problem with your interpretation? Jesus was stating that if a man looks at a married woman (remember the discussion on adultery) with a covetous heart (a strong desire to possess her for himself) then in his heart he is already guilty because of his sinful desire. This is akin to David with Bathsheba. But to stretch Jesus’ words into a scenario suggesting He was condemning all sex outside of marriage is not faithful to the context of the words He chose, to the cultural circumstances, or even to other scripture. For example, In Deuteronomy 21:11 we see an example of looking at a woman with sexual desire which is both approved by God and provided for in the law. Therefor Jesus words simply cannot mean sexual thought or desire. Nor do they imply all sexual activity outside of marriage is inherently sinful. In fact He chose terms like lust (sinful covetousness) and adultery (violation of a covenant) to very specifically set His words in context.

Moving on to Paul’s teaching on sexuality is difficult partly because Paul (at least as recorded in the NT) so often contradicted Jesus, and partly because many of his writings are clear forgeries by later church authors with their own biases and agendas. But even still…cultural context and cross examination with other scripture is required to seek to be honest with the author’s intent. I disagree completely that Paul’s understanding MUST be that “sex outside of marriage is a destructive sin and cannot be used as a gratifying release of our sexual passions” because this both contradicts scripture (which he was a serious student of) and because it is not consistent with present circumstances of his day. Remember women were still basically considered property and it was near to impossible to find “legal” sexual partners without violating someone’s property rights or covenant. Hence one common form of single sexuality was either through prostitutes (not consistently forbidden in the law btw) or more commonly through the visiting of the pagan temples where sex was a part of the practice of worship. Paul’s advice is clearly that it is better to marry so a “legal” form of sexual release was always present. But to stretch this into a condemnation of ALL forms of sexuality outside of marriage is, once again, not honest with scriptural context.

All of these narrow and falsely restrictive interpretations of these passages thrown around by preachers today violate clear principles of hermeneutics, as well as completely ignore a wealth of other scripture which would plainly contradict such an interpretation. And, when one begins to study early church history it is pretty easy to trace the introduction of this assault on sexuality…but this post has gone on long enough so I will leave that for another time.

No…if there is a “biblical sexual ethic”, it is that sex is a beautiful gift from God which should be celebrated but never used to harm others. (Law of love guidance in other words)

afrigeek

Hi Gary,
I long ago came to the conclusion that in these online comments and arguments, neither side can convince the other of their position. I am not likely to convince you and neither are you likely to convince me of your stance. So my comments are really meant to provide the other side of the argument to those simply reading so that they make up their own mind what they choose to believe.
However I always wonder at the advisability of “playing the lawyer” with God’s law. In human law we can find loopholes in the way laws are written and exploit them even when we know what the spirit of the law was. However I wonder how successful we think such a strategy would be before the great judge of the whole earth. Ultimately this is not just a lawyer TV show but a real life experience with eternal life and damnation at stake. I choose to play it safe.

Gary

I am greatly intrigued by the logic you seem to present…that one interpretation is “playing the lawyer” while the other is seeking truth? I have no intention of looking for or presenting “loopholes”. We are searching for meaning or factual and faithful translation…nothing more. From my point of view…it is your argument that plays the lawyer…the prosecuting attorney if you will. And I absolutely challenge your assertion that I am looking to exploit loopholes while somehow knowing I am violating “the spirit of the law” whatever the hell that is. I believe correct understanding IS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. Those who abuse scripture to make it say what it does not (I.E. All sex outside of marriage is sinful) are the ones who ignore intent.

And your conclusionary threat of your boogeyman god figure who will roast my ass in hell for all eternity for earnestly seeking him is abusive and insulting. But I guess when you can no longer discuss the issue based upon the merits of the argument (you have not addressed anything in my posts) then that is all you have left.

afrigeek

This is precisely why I avoid these arguments normally. It always degenerates into offense and abuse because most people online are quick to take offense. I chose not to get offended by some of your statements which come off arrogant as if your opinion on scriptural interpretation is the only right one. When I saw comments like “commonly misunderstood”, “false and restrictive interpretations”, “not honest with scriptural context” etc. I could have chosen to take offense at your patronizing tone and assumption of superior revelation but I didn’t because I saw this as a discussion.
On the other hand, my comment above did not say that I think you’re going to hell, neither did I accuse you of playing the lawyer. I simply said that personally I choose to play it safe with the simpler explanation.
Look at it this way:
If you’re right and I am wrong, all that I will have done is restrict myself unnecessarily in the area of sexuality. On the other hand, if I am right and you’re wrong, the possible consequences could be worse.
It is like the equivalent of deciding to drive 5mph above the speed limit or someone else who chooses to drive 5 mph below. Many will argue that there is an allowance up to that and no cops will trouble you for it. The one who decides to drive 5mph under will possibly take longer to arrive. You will probably get their earlier and have no problems at all with the cops. But there is a possibility that you could find a cop who insists that 5mph above the limit is still a violation regardless.
But in any case, with this getting rancorous, I rest my case. As I said earlier, I had no hopes of convincing you or anyone else who already has an opinion on this but just wanted to ensure that the other side of this can be presented and the neutral reader can choose which one he prefers.

Gary

You crack me up man. You present your views as sincere and portray me as one seeking to find loopholes as if to simply get away with something…then throw in the threat of eternal damnation…and still have the nerve act all pouty when called out on it. You did not seek to engage me on any of my points regarding proper context and word usage but chose instead to make the discussion about attacking my motives. And your silly speed limit analogy still implies I AM THE ONE knowingly violating scripture. This proves you have no intent of engaging in objective dialogue. And you STILL circle back around to your boogeyman god threats. What the hell ever man. You can’t discuss an issue on the merits then yeah…I think maybe it is best you avoid these conversations.

You are right about one thing though. The neutral reader will have no trouble figuring out which one of us actually tried to discuss the topic objectively. LOL